Omayeli Arenyeka
Omayeli is a software engineer at LinkedIn. She studied computer science, art, and design at New York University.
Yeli and I lived together one summer in college while we were interning in New York, and after seeing her senior symposium on data, beauty, and action, I wanted to discuss what she thought about technology's augmentation of government functions and its intersection with art.
JACKIE
So first question—you've been thinking about the role that tech can play in government and improving transparency. Where do you see it filling the gap? And how?
OMAYELI
“I see technology hopefully filling the gap in terms of access—giving people more access to capital, information, etc., so they can make better decisions and better themselves.”
I don’t know whether I’ll say "in government." I’m thinking of tech outside of the government. Basically operating under the idea that the government will fail and try to destroy us in certain respects, so we have to figure out how to create lives for ourselves outside that but also be there to hold them the accountable when they do fail. I see technology hopefully filling the gap in terms of access—giving people more access to capital, information, etc., so they can make better decisions and better themselves. So, for example, GoFundMe at this point can be seen as the healthcare system when the traditional one fails. So having stuff like that or Patreon that ensure the people screwed over by the system are getting their needs met. But then also building something that sends a push notification when a healthcare bill that will directly affect your life is going to go through congress or something that can make economic/scientific jargon in papers or bills easier to present to a low-income family. So giving people access to information both outside and inside the government.
JACKIE
Oh, that's super interesting. So not just civic tech, even, but websites like GoFundMe and Patreon.
OMAYELI
Yeah! So anything that's just finding holes (places where the government should be providing) and then for a short term goal, filling those. Ideally the government would be doing these things, but it's not the case right now, and the tech industry moves faster than the government.
JACKIE
You talk specifically about Nigeria, since that's where you're from—do companies like GoFundMe and Patreon have a role to play there, or do you see it as more of a job for local ones?
OMAYELI
Yes, I've seen a lot of Nigerians use GoFundMe for their school fees, hospital bills, etc., and a percentage also rely on outside sources for income (for example, a lot of developers freelance and do work for clients abroad). So yes, they do have roles to play there. But more so in African countries, a significant percentage of the population is bankless and don't have mobile phones and wifi, so a solution like that wouldn't work for them. But I also don't want to be like just give everyone an iPhone and economic growth will happen. It's been hard for me to think about what would be useful for these people cause I've never really been in that position.
JACKIE
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Are you concerned about what happens when private companies that are presumably profit-driven take on tasks that have traditionally been the government's responsibility? Or do the benefits maybe outweigh these kinds of concerns?
OMAYELI
I do think the benefits outweigh the costs, especially in cases where the government is grossly incompetent. But yes, I am concerned. Even with for-profit companies that aren’t necessarily taking on government functions but where governmental issues like freedom of speech come into play, we’ve seen how that can go sour. So it’s even more dangerous for companies doing the “government’s work.” A lot of politicians in Nigeria and even in the US are largely self-interested, but at least to some degree they have a facade to keep.
“People bring their biases to whatever they create, and it seems like the rules about who gets to say or do what are so fickle in private companies. They can change their rules as they see fit.”
Before, most companies weren’t interested in that. That’s changing because we’re more likely to call them out for their bad behavior. Private companies try to work efficiently because, if they don’t, they lose money and die but there hasn’t been much consequence for them being sneaky and breaking laws. For a lot of companies things like equality and safety are an afterthought. So that does scare me. Like George Zimmerman successfully raised money on Kickstarter, but Chanel Lewis’ campaigns were shut down. People bring their biases to whatever they create, and it seems like the rules about who gets to say or do what are so fickle in private companies. They can change their rules as they see fit. In that the speed at which they grow and make decisions becomes a problem.
JACKIE
Yeah. It feels like a system that requires a lot of trust. Do you see any ways that private companies can be held more accountable, maybe?
OMAYELI
I like the culture of dragging people.
JACKIE
Same.
OMAYELI
Well, not dragging—maybe more exposing. I think diversity and inclusion plays a role. Having a diverse set of experiences, not just that are in the room but are able to speak up. We need whistleblowers. A huge part of that is fighting for employees' rights to criticize without risking their livelihood. Like the stuff with Uber and Unroll.me. It didn't start when that article was written. It's been going on, but I guess no one could say anything or were scared, too? Meanwhile, the Fyre Festival is a complete mess, and we are able to get every detail because an employee didn't have to sign an NDA. Aside from that, we've seen that the idea of voting with your dollar works at least sometimes. But, again, we can only do that if we know the company is doing something bad.
“We need whistleblowers. A huge part of that is fighting for employees’ rights to criticize without risking their livelihood.”
JACKIE
You read Startup, right? Doree Shafrir's new book?
OMAYELI
Yes!
JACKIE
Well, so I'm in the middle of it, and one comment that struck me was when Mack is pitching to VCs, and he talks about how his company could have infinite scale. That kind of mentality seems pretty prevalent in the Valley—that the best possible scenario is your company scaling to every single person in the world. but in light of everything we're discussing, that's potentially pretty scary? Do you think there are alternatives to how people can approach building/growing companies?
OMAYELI
Yeah, I don't know much about business, but I feel like the obvious approach is stop and think and also listen to people? Another thing the book touches on is this idea that the founder believes he's changing the world and creating something that is so useful and necessary and he ignores those who think otherwise and does whatever it takes to get that startup growing. There's an ego problem there that needs to be addressed. Why is your idea so important that you need to do whatever it takes and everyone who raises any form of criticism is just against your progress?
“There’s an ego problem there that needs to be addressed. Why is your idea so important that you need to do whatever it takes and everyone who raises any form of criticism is just against your progress?”
Companies can be successful with a target audience and market, but this infinite scale idea seems like it's rooted in hunger for power/influence/an inflated ego. A lot of companies take their business model, migrate to a country in Africa and then fail and say Africa is not ready for development. They don't bother to think that their business model or idea isn't for everyone won't work in that form everywhere because they don't listen to people who know better than they do. They just assume. It seems like a reasonable and maybe obvious thing to do would be to stop and ask.
JACKIE
Yeah, you would think. Okay, so switching topics now—you're really interested in art and design and how technology intersects with that. What are some of the ways you're thinking about that? Or maybe some interesting projects other people are doing lately that you find interesting?
OMAYELI
I like the idea of art shedding light on things we already have an idea about. When people talk a lot about black wealth, they say stuff like, "You shouldn't buy Jordans or weaves," or, you know, poor people shouldn't have iPhones. So I started thinking of a game where you would try to close the wealth gap by reducing the number of Jordans in your closet and the conclusion would be something like going back ten generations you would have had to have bought ten Jordans every day for the rest of your life to close the gap or something. Or like juxtaposing politicians' tweets about MLK or a mass shooting with their votes on issues like affirmative action and gun control.
JACKIE
So art that makes a statement, socially or politically?
OMAYELI
Yeah, mostly. That it's not telling you what to do necessarily or making a statement explicitly but the project presents a question that upon answering you start to think differently. This is a simple example but the only one I can think of right now—OutsideInside. It shows you what your surroundings look like, and then you ask yourself, "Why am I not outside?"
JACKIE
Yeah, that's really cool. Does technology enable or maybe accelerate that kind of creativity in a fundamentally different way? Or is it one tool of many?
OMAYELI
Yeah! If the purpose is consumption and for the spectator to have some kind of connection to your art piece, the chances of that happening is greater if you actually know the spectator or can make a reasonable assumption about them. That kind of art—that relies on information about the spectator is more powerful. We can ask more of viewers and users when using technology. Like, the OutsideInside project can get your location, and data viz projects can get user data from Twitter or wherever. The likelihood of someone coming across your project and going, "I see myself in this," is greater.
Here's another example. Basically, he gets biometric data from the user and finds a resemblance in one of the missing children from Mexico.
JACKIE
Are you optimistic about the future of this kind of art? I've been thinking a lot about the question of creation versus consumption, and it feels like very much an open question whether people will be able to create deep, thoughtful work—like good, long-term investigative reporting or this kind of thought-provoking art—in a way that's sustainable for the creators.
OMAYELI
“Our support for artists is limited. People still believe “good work” should be free—i.e., activism, art, tweetstorms. The people able to make a living off making great art are the exception.”
Not super optimistic. But then I'm not super optimistic about anything, really. I know people are willing to give to an idea they believe in, but not necessarily to individuals. I know personally when I think of giving to art, it's more so "I want this cool thing to be created" or "I want to own this" rather than "I want this artist to live a good, stable life." Our support for artists is limited. People still believe "good work" should be free—i.e., activism, art, tweetstorms. The people able to make a living off making great art are the exception. A whole lot more of consumption is happening because of the Internet, but I don't think artists are receiving what they deserve yet. I think we have issues with supporting someone's choice to produce out of the structures that have been established.
JACKIE
Yeah, exactly. Do you feel like that's changing with things like Patreon? Or not in any meaningful way?
OMAYELI
I feel like Patreon is changing things, but, I don't know, I feel like it's still very much I'm paying to consume and not to support? Which might not be a bad thing. But it would be nice if sustaining themselves didn't come at a price of having to create for a reason other than that's what they like to do. It's like, give your Patreon fans special rewards! Still feels like their work is influenced/corrupted in some way. Basically, I'm just ready for a basic income.
JACKIE
Oh, wow, okay. Want to elaborate on that?
OMAYELI
Like, a lot of artists create because it's natural to them. They like doing it. When people pay to "allow" them to do what they love, it's corrupted in a way. It becomes harder to create without inhibition or to create without thinking of your fans or audience. And it seems the only way to achieve complete freedom to create is to remove dependence on others, which is where the basic income would come to play. Remove inhibition so people can create as they please.
“A lot of artists create because it’s natural to them. They like doing it. When people pay to “allow” them to do what they love, it’s corrupted in a way. It becomes harder to create without inhibition or to create without thinking of your fans or audience.”
JACKIE
Yeah. Basic income is always an interesting topic when it comes to tech because I feel like, in a lot of ways, it absolves tech of the fault that comes with displacing jobs. Not that that applies in the case of artists so much.
OMAYELI
Yeah, I mean, the government and VCs seem to be invested in putting money in places that do less to solve the needs of people so they might be able to provide for themselves. We'd be fine with their plans to make another planet habitable for humans if maybe we had access to food, water and a place to live from a basic income. It's just ridiculous that we are focusing so much on certain types of innovation when some people don't yet have clean water.
JACKIE
Is there a good way to think about how to balance the two?
OMAYELI
I don't know, really. I think maybe I'd be satisfied for now with more money going to social good efforts than innovation—and I mean the self driving cars kind of innovation. But if the private companies were periodically thinking of ways within their existing business models to help out, that'd be good also. So thinking, what's a natural extension of our product that can be used to benefit people? Like Airbnb and the homeless. They stepped up with the refugee crisis, but many asked why they haven't done anything for homelessness.
